Serg

At least you accept that such a view of music is groundless, aside of your own opinion. I already wrote a letter, starting to my Stake President, we had a meeting because he though 'nice' my concern, then again, after saying just this(that change was needless because all thought the same), he told me that alluding to the seventy was useless , moreover reaching the Presidency was a lack of respect to his local authoritative ' guidance' . Whatever, and they say is not bigotry. Regards,

Why is it so difficult to communicate something? Is it language? Time? Resources? Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps, the nature of miscomunication is not rooted in the media(transmission phenomena) but in the willingness of the receptor. We are all, receptors, at some extent. I posited an issue, Sacramental Music, and gave 5 questions that ought to be anwered if to defend it the way it is. No answer has been given, but the predictable ' be serious, the Spirit dislikes it' . Let me remind you, in all 'humility' , the following: 1) Reverence, is an attitude of awe and respect for the sacred. 2) Not All Reverence has consisted in equal ways of expresion throughout history or God's people. 3) These different concepts of reverence, respond, thus, to the local time and place which surrounds this chosen people. 4) Further, God has apporved of the different Reverence concepts(worship conduct) in each age. 5) We Do , have a particular concept of Reverence. 6) This concept is rooted in a time and place(culture) 7) When the Reverence concept of this population reaches other population in different place and time meets another Reverence concept 8) We are saying, that our Reverence concept is the only plausible(and worthy) 9) Our reasons are....that we just say it. It has worked for US and hence should work for ALL. 10) While saying this, we do not acknowledge the other population's sense of reverence and worship, thus, we exclude them. 11) This whole attitude goes hence against all history of God's dealings with men, and social concern. 12) This is wrong. 13) This needs change. 14) He who is in power to make that change iand does not make it, is culpable of th epresent situation; 15) either by ignorance he is convinced that He is ultimately right, or willingly he wants to make other populations subject. 16) Either could be Hinckley's situation. There are no reasons to support an anglo-victorian way of worship as The Way of worship. But there are good reasons to support many others As Well. First of all; Crimson, you say that ' most' of these evangelical churches only celebrate Sacrament Meetings few times, in contrast to us, and thus, we are truly required to continuosly retain a particular way of worship. This is a fatal mistake. Evangelicals(at least, for mormons who believe the world revolves around them , and have never participated of such) celebrate sacramental Meetings(the few they may have, although a lot others are carismatics who actually have one or two each month), with the SAME music as non-sacramental ones! And even if some didnt that makes no case against our true concern! Scripture supports a use of many instruments left to the conscience of EACH congregation Social Concern supports equality of cultural manifestation among each congregation Logical necessity aside of voluntarist and groundless attitude, supports an aperture and equal weight of meaning to different spiritual experiences Individual experience supports which way of worship TRULY helps him in an experience of Reverence for teh Divine ' Objectively' speaking, there is no more spiritual music than other, music and what it inspires is a social construct. The sound of drums, that to a mormon(nonrelated to such) may cause awarness of distraction and uncomfort, to an african-american, an evangelical or a latin, that have been raise to accept this and feel GOOD and recognize more of a spiritual reverence, often raises him to a true experience of the Sacred. Our present condition: What do we expect of an attitude that feels superior(and thus with the ' burden' of enlighting others? 1) That It's way of worship is the best for the actual means of revering the sacred(comunion with God) 2) That others should be abandoned 3) That these abandoned should be viewed as defficient(because they actually fail to attract God) 4) Thus those who persist(as Serg!) in these ways are not tolerable or acceptable unto God 5)Plainly, either others accept Our way, or, the highway. 6) 'Our' such way of worship IS anglo-victorian(it was shaped by that time and place) 7) This anglo-victorian Way is that One which is licit 8) Others must out of true necessity accept it, or fail to attract Reverence for teh sacred 9) If it followed that others dont enjoy this one way and must accept it, and failing to attract God and revere him 'properly' utterly menas to have no relationship with Him 10) Others must be ' anglicized' in some extent as to enjoy this. Is this not bigotry? It may be covered by nice ' progressive' thought and makeup, global perspective and communal security, but is grounbdless, offensive and wrong. I am sorry to make ' much' a storm of a 'glass of water' but I cant stand Teh Attitude of this so Right way of worship. Its not that is wrong the anglo-victorian way, but that none are wrong, and it's supositions of superiority, being rooted only in localized culture phenomena, ought to give amplitude to others as well who ALSO conform the Body of Christ. Now, do I make myself clear? In fact this is what a member of the forum(lds)said in strawbery's thread concerning Bigotry in the Church: ""I agree that followers of Christ should actively work toward eradicating bigotry from their lives. Problem is, many don't even recognize it (thanks for pointing mine out) and further, most people are overwhelmed with all the things they need to improve or work on to become more like Christ, so it's baby steps the whole way - most people don't change overnight and most are already working as hard as they can at other areas of their lives that need changing. I don't really see a way to prevent these tendencies, ecxept that children raised in accepting, tolerant homes will model that behavior. But to get to that point, you have to fix all the adults before they have kids."" This is a fair view, i am concerned with changing Us, adults, who actually hold power to make improvement, not rely in any abstraction of a supposed leader that is accepted to be capable of mistakes but unsearchable for such!!! is it not true that this concern is justified? Rather, why dont you respond to the questions I raised concerning the example of the Priesthood ban(those who opposed it before the lifting), and to the arguments i gave to give allowance and not judgement to these?!

Well, \i thought it wa srather unnecesary for me to actually point out the instruments being that is such a clear issue (ate least Ben got it). Guitar, trumpet, drums, etc... most instrument enjoyed by fellow christians. Now, adress each question in regard to this. But notice, dont merely say you dont care or have a different opinion, but give proof, argumentation, sound reason, not mere politics. As for Crimson, when you say that the Church doesnt prohibit any sort of music outside of it, Dah! Is it even necessary to say it? Of course, I am at liberty to do that even if the Church would have decided not to. The issue here is WITHIN the Church, because, it is when it comes to teh Church's teachings of music other than anglo-victorian, when it deceives people into an etnocentrist view. There is no doubt as how the manuals of politics in stake and wards prohibit and diminish instruments such as guitars, drums, etc.... and apart form what i actually do not want to here here(that there is no ' conceivable' way in which the spirit can approve of that) I want to here reasons, not speculation. regards,

First: Outshined, you have been dishonest in this thread, you do not adress my arguments but wave at them. I proposed a logical argument that explicitly went to affirm that change is real in leadership and that they DO learn from mistakes, to what follows(not that as childishly you ay) Hinckley is therefore culpable of mistake, but that he is not logically excluded by no hiher power. Now based on that possibility(i.e.reality) I based one example, that of worship music. Second: It is inconceivable how CrimsonKiros values as less other's people's need, way and reality of worship. This may virtually be seen as , yes, a ' lack of upbeat', but is not profoundly. That is so in your view, because in reality you either do not value properly the reality and depth of worship or just value it too much to the point of letting others call any other sort of worship(aside of yours) as lame and sinful. Pity on you. We are persons, and each deserves(in as much as another is obligated) to be respected and valued in OUR CONTEXTS. Now, I adressed the issue, you are the one who (along with Outshined) doesnt adress them particularly: 1) How is it that worship OTHER than anglo-victorian worship is sinful? Needless? Or wrong? 2) How scripturally and on Whose authority do actual leaders base these doctrines? Where all porphets of times past in different contexts worshipped with a pragmatic and all inclusive way of music(Scriptures, history), our nowadays procliam that to be both needless to explain or justify! 3) If the conclusion is an allowable need of change(or improvement) then it FOLLOWS(why dont any of you GET that lofical necessity???) that one can and sholud persue it. 4) How does it folow that this is an invention of mine? Do you sincerely believe* that other cultures agree with this? there are a lot of other prople who feel like me. But even if only one person recognized this fault, would it make any difference? If only i(that is not so in reality) recognized an evil in my comunity(a rapist and my neighbor's girls), would it alter the fact that is evil and needs changing the fact that only I say so?? Please!!! 5) We cant actually support this thought of exclusiveness based on a authoritative obedience to less important conceptions(invented by these felloww leaders!), remember the words of the lord: "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the WEIGHTIER provisions of the law: JUSTICE and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done WITHOUT NEGLECTING the others." WE cant justify this exclusiveness, at least for those as i , who value worship experience, who value differently instrumental inspiration, is unspeakable to accept this because it goes against our very selves! This is not a mere matter of music, but even in principle, lets say, if we all(of other mormon cultures), decided to get along and value in th extrme the anglo-victorian worship, yet to insist even then that if it were otherwise it would be wrong, is to contradict the very sayings of the Lord! The only things that hereto have not been adreesed or justified are Outshined's conception of me(personal/spiritual), historical(virtually speechless) and logical(evidently non-related to it). In fact Crimson, in regard to the jesus' marriage i hold the same position as you, and the post you presented there to sustain it, including both historical and scriptural supports, were awkardly good. Why not the same technique to adress the music issue? The lack of that (true and expected0 way of argumentation HERE shows that at least either you find no way to do it again with this topic or utterly consider your leader's ideas as groundless. It is a shame that you who consider yourselves my brother in the Church not try to understand and honestly adress each premise. But not with mere voluntarists conclusions, but with arguable logic-based ones! I am not the one who is in fault here(though I have many in other respects), but you, cause even while I hold all these ideals, I always try to tolerate and not insult a person, neither to (in the craziest manner) stablish concepts of worthiness in such, or ignorance, but I always listen and pounder, then I react but not as a child's outrage but in a concern for the other party to understand (not MY ponit necessarily) but WHY/HOW I arrived at it, so it doesnt come to be in the end, any sort of ' I say' - ' You say" . Forums were not intended to present such format-conversations. In fact Outshined, in my thread On Melquisedec priesthood, in the context of Joseph Smith intentionally lying, and further possibilities of mistakes in leaders, this was said: "QUOTE 'We as LDS do not consider the prophet to be infalable (sp). He too is a mortal man just like the rest of us but chosen for his special mission. Were mistakes made? I am sure. Does it change what happened that day and many other times during his life? I don't believe so. ' Also quite true, of pretty much every prophet in history." You quoted ben Raines, and said the last phrase. What happened to that conviction?? If you are not up to these standards of scrutiny, then leave it. Regards,

I am in no way offended or convinced that you have taken any sides(because in fact, as the very core of the issue is foreign to your experience of faith, it is thus unreasonable for you to do so), but aside possibility of being such, my concern was that whatever you come to believe on what he pointed out, it is a circular though in that it does nothing to my argument. It was a rather needless comment that only played it's role in distracting. When Wittgenstein spoke of language usage, he asserted a most recognizeble and notorious truth: That when in a conversation, a party sudden SAID an obvious truth, it would dramatically affect the tone of the conversation, as to induce the receptive paty believe that the one that utters it doesnt consider 'such' x said known to him. In that manner, I reason that what Outshined meant by that was: You say that because they are humans leaders make mistakes(premise 1), but you are also human(premise 2), thus you may be mistaken about 'your views' (premise 3). The ambiguity comes right at the end, when ' your views' is not properly explained(intentionally!!!). It would(a tone with our conversation) be one out of two: That leaders can be now making mistakes(what I in fact said in premise 1, and what he is formerly using as a deductive instrument-hence asserting it true) or that hinckley NOW is making a particular(in this case music) mistake. To sustain the former in the context of teh comment would be rather nonsense and circular though if is intended to contribute to his intention of correcting me. Well, in sense 1 it doesnt but reaserts my point needlessly. To ustain teh later would be thoughful and just, but it would require that he actually replies to my argument of music to tell me at which point am I wrong to believe that Hinckley is making a mistake in this regard. I just think that he out of no notable brilliance said what he said in the first manner, and as shown that is needless comment(if not intended to further a thesis-this is, I am wrong) or circular thinking(if intended to further such notion). At any extent, what ARE your comments, if there are? Regards,

And Dr.T: Though the comment of Outshined of ' if they are human you are also' is a logical necesity but simply harmless and redundant! It does no harm to my argument, because it works in a circular thought: I say they are human, then if I am human, I also can do(mistakes) as they. But nowhere did I say the contrary! But to reduindantly say this is an attempt to make persons feel that if MY humanity is now taken into account then theirs simply disappears. This does nto work that way! If Socrates told me ' all men are mortal' and I replied 'yes' but you are also, so you may be mistaken about it, it would sound as mere incoherence. Because for me toassert that I would have to be taking for granted(that all men are mortal) what he says that later i say maybe the contrary(and because all men are mortals-socrates' x conclusion- then he is mortal-derivative truth coming from my acceptance of socrates'x conclusion- thus as he is also mortal it follows that he may be wrong-assuming he is potentially wrong in saying that they are all mortals, because he is mortal as all-again what he had said...) Circular logic, bad. Dont be so quickly amazed by the distractions in though that Outshined so embarrased by his failure to adress my points trys to provoke.

The problem is, that, when we say as Outshined that no changes 'should'be made, we are saying that no 'need' for them we have, but what do we logically and unavoidably conceive of the changes that DO take place? Please! How do you account for th echanges in our temple ceremony? A hardminded perosn with no notions of óughtness'or 'should'in change would have to say"I dont know", because to say otherwise(as would logically be), that if there WERE changes we expect that they wer for the better, that person would be unavoidably asserting my case. Now, you may rationalize and justify all you want concerning the possibilities of changes, but they do happen and they DO for a REASON. Now, that reason is not voluntarism, is a based desicion, not on God's necessary opinion, bbut on the logical good that comes from it. Hence, we may say, that the change of policy in behalf of blacks, was good, and if so, it is BETTER NOW than before. To say that is the same, is to value the black's experience of priesthood as unimportant, because if being and not being are equally valuable, only indifference resides. Now, we all conceive that is better now than before, and while saying this, we logically admit that saying BEFORE that it would be BETTER(as our now) to make the change, was equally true. Hence a persue of change can be justified, even while speaking of the 'annointed'. If Outshined's position is to be hold, that no changes are in no way NEEDED(or even POSSIBLY admitted), then it follows some postulates: A) that the change that was made(as example) in the priesthood ban issue was not necessary then, to deny it is to say that the leaders of those times were more suseptible of growth and learning(i,e.improvement) than present ones, a thing that is incoherent. B ) if not necessary then it didnt do either good or bad, thus we ought to consider the black's experience of priesthood as an unexplainable condesendation of all knowing untouachable leaders towards them C) If it didnt do bad or good, and it was unnecessary(because the reasons dont concern it's outcomes,i.e.improvement), then God is a God of unnecesary politics, and heaven forbid, how do we know which commandments ar of these nature, and we so hardly try to keep them? D) If it is said that this was so, then the member who before the lifting of the ban protested or considered it an unjustice, was wrong, it wasnt an unjustice, it just was* E) If it just was*, then those hurt by it matter not, neither those who feel better now F) But this gibberish to mantain the leadership's capacity for no need of change or improbvement, is not so. G) A change is made, and it either makes an addition or a reduction I) This made both, it abstracted from our math the unworthiness/unnecessary experience of blacks and added the such new experience J) If it added or reducted, either it improved or made worse the x given K) If it did improve the x given, then it followed that: it was needed(for to look to grow and to have more goodness is rational), there were reasons for it, and those who considered it's absense as an evil, were right, just as those who consider themselves more happy when having two legs than one are also right. L) If so, then he who protested could rightly do so, M) If he protested and no change was made, this didnt mean that his position was unnecesary, but that those responsable for making that Change were not in accord N) If not in accord, and later came to accord, they by necessity learned, decided, poundered and made a better desicion than before O) Thus the leadership improved in understanding(i.e.Kimball says"the long" awaited moment, McConkie says 'we spoke by a limited light', etc... P) Hence, both the persons who protested were right in doing so, because a change was needed R) If it was a better state of affairs in 1978, it would also have been so in 1910,(or from the very beggining as Smith did with blacks) S) If just as good at any prior time, then just as necessary at such a prior time T) Thus the leaders that held the power to make the change prior to the time it was made lacked such understanding, moreover needed such U) To say that it wouldnt have been just as good an necessary for the change in any prior time would have to be proven by some other merits than our present logic V) To recuur to teh Lord's desicion would be to refuge in voluntarism, and say that becase He didnt want to, blacks didnt have such change prior to 1978 W) That would be a very difficult concept to prove in the light of th etrue historical process of the situation of the ban, where it didnt occur as sheer revelation or occurance among 1978's leaders, nor did it started as a reveletion or sheer occurance X) Hence to admitt this is to admitt it of most others(if not properly all) changes in politics coming from the leaders at all times Y) To say this is to say that Serg is as potentially right to look for a change as those who did before the 1978 issue z) Thus, to say otherwise than this, and contradict serg saying how illogicla and rebellious he is failing to recognize all this necessary contemplation For those, who as Outshined, either ignores or knows and willingly ignores the process of this historical(and representative) event, here partake of some fact: Joseph Smith did give freely the priesthood to blacks Brigham Young decided based on his sole will to withdraw such experience from them The Such Young instituted slavery in Utah(a thing mostly despised by Smith) No revelation or new light, or concent from members in general conference, or Presidency proclamation was said of such desicion Later prophets until McKay believed in a rationalization of this desicion(as to avoid to llok at it as a mere willful groundless desicion because then it would have looked bad), that included a doctrine of damnation and unworthiness on black people The very prophet who instituted it(Young) said prophetically and ex catedra, that no change would be made McKay didnt believe this doctrine of damnation, and proposed meetings with the Quorum to settle this matter Other leaders in the quorum denied his position and voted against it, McKay nevertheless started a movement(as president) to accept some 'negroes', he started, playng the game of racists in the Church, by admitting any male of sark color to the priesthood, that was not of african descent(because here the racists had no other way to escape, if they were to sustain the interpretation of Cain's curse, it was restricted to these) People, natives and many others commenced thanks to mcKay and reluctant leaders to come Kimball was not in agreement with the racist position, therefore he started this tactic again among his fellow leaders, by allowing the Church to be built in places as Brasil, and a temple be constructed there(before the lifting of the ban) When inevitable for racists, Kimball suggested a meeting, at which he explained to them why he FELT and KNEW that this change was NEEDED(for indeed, if not NEEDED it wouldnt have been adreed as 'awaited') Such leaders were very much more receptive to RECEIVE this light, and accepted it. After this, is proper to adress the following: The Lord does not expect to COMMAND His Servant in ALL, but HE ALONE and out of HIS OWN will is expected to DO works(changes). This was the case. The very 'revelation' explains how it was REALLY received(not as a miracle unexpected sudden new* vision of social equality), but as a thought and throughly studied case! Look at what the revelation Kimball received originally said: 10. And lo, likewise the doctrine of the curse of Cain and the mark of blackness, as well as everything pertaining thereto, is also repugnant to me, but was given unto my Saints as a test. 11. And ye have been valiant and righteous in obeying the words of my mouth which were given not as true doctrine but only as a test for your benefit. 12. Now, therefore, rejoice in my blessing and receive my Word! For no more shall ye make any distinction among my Saints as to their race or as to the color of their skin; for I the Lord God am no respecter of persons, but all shall come unto me and all may be worthy to receive all the blessings of my Gospel without let or hindrance. What do we think of this? The Lord is practically saying: Hey, you know, I tested you, with a false doctrien, that you may come to be obedient in this, but noe, I assure you(and take off my mask), this is repugnant, lets change it because(out of all sudden) you have learned somehow from it!!!! This is Kimballs mere(but GENUINE) attitude towards the justification of this. But this doesnt stand. Because if such were true, then Kimball would have had to believe that this doctrine was true(in order to be tested) but he didnt! Or McKay! Or Joseph! If true, then Kimball would have had to receive with amzement the declaration, and not with the predictive attitude with which it starts, note it: 'Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God’s eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood' 'aware' when and how??? Up to that time, only the doctrine that the Lord had intentionally allowed to be believed was not pointing to this moment but on the contrary, because it never pointed at this moment was that it played the role of probation(in the logic employed by racists)! But it was thought: " As we have witnessed the expansion of the work of the Lord over the earth, we have been grateful that people of many nations have responded to the message of the restored gospel, and have joined the Church in ever-increasing numbers. This, in turn, has inspired us with a desire to extend to every worthy member of the Church all of the privileges and blessings which the gospel affords." The key words are that because 'we' have 'contemplated' the expansion(i.e.necesity) of the work 'we' have 'been inspired ' with a DESIRE to EXTEND' these privilages, where here is teh ' Thus says the Lord' ? Where is it 'we never imagined that such trhing would happen but the Lord aside of any contemplation of ours arose and said this to us'? No! Because they had SEEN , they felt inspired to DESIRE to extend this. Now, on what does Outshined bases his thought against this? Sheer idolatry. In fact all I have to say to prove my point is to ask is THIS TRUE? : "The Negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned, ...but this inequality is not of man's origin. It is the Lord's doing, is based on his eternal laws of justice, and grows out of the lack of spiritual valiance of those concerned in their First Estate [the pre-existence]." Mormon Doctrine, p. 527 - 528, 1966 edition The answer is yes or no. If yes: Then it follows that present situation of the ' negroe' is contradictory to this all eternal decree. And a rational explanation ought be given, concerning how to allow for such an unpredictable change. If no: Then is not only thsi false TODAY, but at ALL TIMES prior to now, and hence, McConkie was lying(even if convinced of it) and was better when he was convinced of the opposite than when not, hence, the member who proclaimed falsehood in this prior to 1978 WAS right, and the leaders WERE wrong. This, is to say, is no mere matter of opinion, this doctrien was practiced, revealed and proposed as teachings of the annointed and prophets, and it's radical abbandonment can only be explained by accepting their mistake and their now greatly valuied change of attitude(and learning). Blacklds.org sustains that ordanations to Abel's descendants were carried throught the century. here is another refference http://www.ldshistory.net/1990/embry.htm My point is that , if there WAS a change(as a solitary example, we may talk of many others-starting with the design of our garments) at that time with leaders of same capacity for inspiration than present ones, we may now also be justified in oppose some politics because they make US feel how those FELT before this change, hence, as Hinckley is nOT excluded of this phenomenon, it is proper not to cuestion as an irrational person Serg's adolesence, or rebellion or groundless attitude, but th ereasons for such a justified possibility. Now, tp set an example that unless it is adressed by outshined it will remain to him as an ignored fact, we postulate that MUSIC in the Church ought and must change. Why? I already said. Why not? Outshined has not dared to adrees it. Every one of the above mentioned willful acts of presidents(in previous post) can I sustain. It is easy to just dismiss them as sheer adolesence of serg and say that I dont show any reference, but there they are! And anyone including lds historians that look at them, accept them, and they dont deny them or attack the worthiness of the person that brings them up, I mentioned them, I cant go to your home and show the books to you with the proofs, you can learn of these facts in any respectable history of iour religion, in fact, is YOUR prerogative to show why historically 'such' and 'such' is not true, to tell me that you dont believe that if I am married and say that \i am not simultaneously is not williful lying, then you are simply neurotic and need a reconstructive therapy for the blindness that leadership idolatry causes on you. regards,

Interestingly, what I intend solely is not to prove that Hinckley is mistaken in some things, but that he can be. What do you say for Fielding Smith in the Reed Smoot case? Tell me if he didnt LIE!!! Is then Hinckley a beter or more of a prophet that the such was? No. I do not intend to prove how we have to get rid of all ledares, I just pointed out in no more controversial way, that i believe that changes must come to some things in the church, ah, for example, worship music. Music, you may check in ALL manuals(of leadership), proclaim or quote leaders proclaiming that music by iinstruments OTHER than piano or organ(slow) instruments, are, to say, " against teh spirit" , that they should not be allowed because they " offend the spirit" and to let them in is to "let them crawl into" our wordhip.... That is an offence and narrow minded view of what netrual music, and all sorts of instruments depending on the culture, can help to promote spiritual experience. In fact, it is an evil deed, to proclaim to some saints of some countries that they not only ' ought' not use them but ' if they do they offend the spirit' . This I am sure you wont deny that happens. But even so, I just went tired of this thread, I never even wanted to discuss such things with you, nor did I ever focused on Hinckley, but on present leadership, though logically one refers to the other, ' present' refered to th ereality of our abstract conclusion of frailty within leadership of my postulate, but anyways, you are not only blind against other appreciations, but to discoursive rethorical logics. Again, those who do know me, or of me, in this forum, know, aside of mere outrage, of the whys and hows of my positions. They all, as GENTLEMEN accept that, they dont fight it as the solitary cowboy. I have felt completely bad about this discussion we have had, I feel totally drained and guilty, I should not have engaged on such a topic with you, knowing that you are unable to reason, I am truly sorry if I offended you, it was not, again, my intention, but your sudden reaction to my post to somebody else(who in fact....what does he say about all this?)....ahh....were you so savage on him for mistrusting the Church too? Hum... Sincerely, this thread is over for me. Regards,

After reading that past thread, and how it ended, now you know Outshined that I am not the only one who takes your attitude to be anything BUT tolerant... However, to sum up the past deal: I never in my inicial post intended to recapitulate or expose reasons as to why we shouldnt trust leaders, nor a particular one(i.e.Hinckley), but after being drawned by OPutshined did I just pointed out that I did believe there have been mistakes(intentional) in our history and that yes, Hinckley is not absent from those. Never did I started a crusade against Hinckley, but used him as an example(of teh postulate) to make logical conlusions on the frailty of leadership. However, aside that you misunderstood and took my remarks as to a total disapproval of the leadership, you centered in such irrelevant(and out of your grasping) topics, as my worthiness...pathetic. To the deal: We could start by the very first prophet of our dispensation, Joseph. Though I regard him as the foremost valuable one of the 15 we've had, yet even he(as HE RECALLED) was not without willingful mistakes. Joseph Smith: Willingly, lied to the public(lds and non lds) and authorities concerning his factual practice of plural marriage, excommunicated(thus unjustly) those who practiced it and tenderly accepted it(thus compromising his word), coceiled form emma mariages(so much that he actually sealed himself two times to two women to react it so Emma would think it was ' by her choice' , managed wrongly the money of both Kirtland and Navoo as to lie to members issuing void credits, etc... Brigham Young: Willingly, excommunicated members who disagreed with him in terms of accepting plural marriage or giving him their wives, excommunicated members for political reasons, took away the priesthood that Joseph gave to black members, started slavery in Utah in 1852, resisted State Law, dared to declare war(unnecesarily), spent very large sums of money in the adquiring of rum, concelied information while the Meadow Mountains case, proposed violence(death) against teh ' gentile' , Lied to the government, challenged doctrine of Joseph and reinterpreted his whole biography, usurped the position of Joseph the 3rd and admitted it, etc... Snow, Woodruff, Fielding Smith: Willingly, lied to the state, lied to the Church, kept practicing plural marriages after the Manifiesto, Fielding Smith actually said he ' never received or imparted any revelation to the church since his presidency' because he ' never intended to function as a receiver of such or guidiance' to no Church(Reed Smoot Church), excommunicated unjustly those members who revealed the situation, etc... McConkie: Willingly(because after all president McKay disaproved it), imparted doctrines as commands concerning the unworthiness of not only black people but those white related to blacks, hence in 1970's a white member(that I know of personally) was told that after discovering an african american in his genealogy(very faaaar away) he couldnt anymore use his priesthood, thus deprived of blessings the people of the Church and promoted it as true, knowing that previous historians, prophets and thinkers in teh Church disapproved of it. I dont remember the name now: The seventy that up tp teh other days told incredible stories of his veteran affairs and ST.Louis team, and was reprehended by teh Church for LYING. Patriarch Smith: Willingly lied to the leaders while having an affair with a fellow priesthood holder, teh Church didn't excommunicate him(thank God!), but sent him to Hawwai to preside a mission. Hinckley, The First presidency: Willingly, adquired a set of fraudent papers for a total sum of almost 115,000, because such ' spoke' bad of the roots of teh church and Joseph's authenticity, surprisingly, an anti-mormon told the First presidency that such papers weren't real, of course, our Seer came to know that later, not after revelation, but after specialists confirmed it, of course, the guy killed a bishop's wife with a bomb, and another authority, and when he himself died accidentally while taking the bomb to another person and the police in due time started seeing that he was the author the Church didnt cooperate to infor them of thei rdealings(which WERE the motive) and left the police lost because it didnt want the world to know what just happened(the buying things fraudent while not knowing so), excommunicated historians and teachers of the Church & BYU beacause of exposing historical sources in a manner of scholarly intention, excommunicated thinkers who protested of bad politics concerning the women and a so pronounced patriarcal order, was involved in the issue of the Olympics of utah concerning money(scholarships for sons of people) wrongly given, etc... You see, this is no good manner of dealing with my reasons, this just lookes like profiles I keep at home. But you intended it this way. Now you may try to justify each of these willfully acts, but again , is your blind commitment not mine. Never did I say that because of such willful mistakes(because, indeed i have not mentioned those I consider to be non-willed), we ought to reject Hinckley, just that WHILE speaking to the brother of teh past thread, though yes, we have to change some things in teh Church, yet that was no complete reason to abandon it. Now in teh head of such literalists as Outshined it rained fire, and I said a thing like " death with Hinckley, up with Serg!" , a thing obviously taken out of context. However, though those are only examples of how willfuly a leader can act wrongly, what |I believe needs to be changed are, as examples: The overall policy of excommunicating disagreeing people The policy of excluding women form ministrating offices The silence atitude towards blacks, and the vindication they need, becasue, though they now, of course, enjoy the priesthood, NOBODY has yet disapporved and considered heretical(in teh Leadership level) teh thoughts of mcConkie or Fielding Smith, or Young, and still we find a lot of adherents that teach it , but worse, BEHAVE as if it were true, The lack of appreciation and commitment to scholarship and coordinated efforts to improve understanding when facing new issues(or old) The authoritarism within local and world wide levels, the ' reverence' and ' holiness' needed to even adress an authority(i.e. Outshined's rage because I didnt adress Hinckley-that is in fact his name- as president or prophet, or dear?!!!), The concepts of worthiness dependant on an interview of such mechganical nature and cultic commitment The pressing attitude of tithes and worthiness The attitude of (not reenterpreting) but recreating lds history in videos that LIE of what and how it was, but as K.Packer said " truth is so hurtful, that only faith-promoting history can be said" . Well, that(if roughly) I could agree with in some respects, but not when it came not only to HIDE wrong deeds but to deny them altogether! Etc.... This, will take time, and correctness in thought and politics of our Church will improve in due time, no revolt or attempts against anyone's worthiness are necessary but of dialogue and argumentation, only severly blind people (of cultic attitudes) would conmsider my position as a destructive force towards the Church. Regards,

Interestingly, if an"american' response is yuxtaposed against a 'nazi'response in the sens ethat the american one is the most 'proper'or tight you deceive your self. because Americans did for the russians(i.e.cubans) what the nazis for the jews. So this is no choice, most territories of teh american empire have been taken through force and deceit. Not something to be proud of. Say it to me that am puertorican!!

Church history correlated to D&C is the best way to interpret it. Find a good book on Church History, and read chronologically the D&C. Suddenly it takes a whole new perspective.

For me, and my personal experience, the far more profound, truthful and revealing section of it, is section 88. Around that section, truly our whole theological experience centers itself.

What do you mean by nuances of Christianity? Then again, something that even he won't be able to articulate logically. For if by nuances we are to understand what by nuances you meant in regard to "shades"(variation) of interpretation, then you are in a big (ecumenic?) assumption. Of course, we all know of your good will in these terms, but nowhere have I in your posts noted any universalism, (as I myself, would sustain ).

1. Yes I know/believe that. 2. Nobody here said of not letting prophets influence your desicions*(are you misreading?), but not DICTATE ALL of them(that was Satan's plan, CONTROL-even through commandments of goodness- our will). 3. I wrote a post concerning prophets, and their reliability. Now, you must be blind to believe that a mortal man can never lead you astray, but that's beside the point. The Lord, through prophets of times past, whose words we voted for as Scripture, and being canonized remain even higher to anyone else's, speak of us in a way that , teh Lord dislikes teh servant who sits around waithing for him(or leaders) to tell them what or how to do everything, but loves him who being a child of him(and no mere partime worker) KNOWS on his own, and seeks on his own to set his own set of judgements to live by.

Let me assure you, if all your decisions are based on what a (loved and cherished) but quasi-victorian wealthy anachronized leader tells you, I think Lucifer's plan worked concerning controling free will! Please, let your choice of movies be one of your own, in fact , let all be of your own. Arrive at conclusions on yourself. Dont rely in another's life experience completely. Our leaders may serve as GUIDES not PATHS. Step in Christ's shoes, not on Monson's expensive ones, or anyone else's. In my opinion, that movie has been the most persuasive of all in terms of it's purpose: There was a Christ, who DIED for you. Watch it and enjoy it.LOL. Regards,

The bit about the Father having a physical body is the biggest difference there is. I've found that the people who argue otherwise are usually throwing in obscure doctrines of little importance and unclear meaning. Some also bring in heresies such as modalism or Adam-God. I've found that if you stick to the basics the only major difference between our views of God is the one I mentioned above. (Keep in mind, though, that is only our views of God. Our views of Man, and Man's relation to God are more different.) Well, when I mean to "abandon" the unity I mean it completely. Jehovah DID abandon His glory and infinite wisdom and power to become a mortal flawed man, though he retook His Glory He had to abandon it for a while, in fact, it is not even logical that you could incarnate and yet remain a God.

We believe in one God in three personages, same as the Catholics. The only difference being that we believe that the Father also has a physical body, whereas the Catholics don't believe that. I made also another two for you to grasp it. The first shows neatly how One God can be interpreted as Three individual ones, thus, One Triangle made out of Three and one of nature. The second one shows how the perfect unity is funamentally like an orbit.

Well, I am absort at all such "attempts" on definying rationalization, at least, in psychological terms such is just one of the mechanisms of the self to deal with something, it essentially consists on justifying rationally(it begged the question) a belief or conduct, ect...It could be a successful justification, it matters not whether the action ISrational or not before or after such process, but it matters that ONE tries to justify it(very often fail in doing so). Other mechanisms are sublimation, projection, etc...

I once did a paper on the Creed, refuting point by point each error of thought. Though at least 3 or 4 points(premises) are true, others derive from fundamental reasonings mingled with tradition , de facto, I reject it entirely. We all do, at least mormon theology holds nothing in common with that creed.

Ben, I just adequately answered a personal inquiry(missplaced comment?) of M and of Dr.T. The line between personal and nonpersonal is way too thin to make clear. You may, anyways, as well, as our moderator edit as you find just. Regards,

M: Off topic. My ideal was not to place my beliefs above necessarily, just that, even if they(mine) were utterly nonesense, at least, I have given(logical or not) explanations. Others have not. Now, I didnt make the structure of arguments simply to show who is more ahead of logical achivement, but rather for forists like you, to see that you are only SHARING beliefs and not explanations, when, what I wanted in the thread(at least, I PROPSED IT!), was to share not only ideals M, but REASONS. Of course, you find all ground to call me incoherent in writting, also in belief, but offer no explanation. Point dully noted, now, let us move on from opinions and go to understanding. PC: I find them very useful your aclarations, now we may proceed to keep on them. 1) Even "armchair" theologians are familiar with the three "omnis" that define God: Omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent Well PC, of course, also i know them, yet the thing here is not merely knowing them, but also explaining(justifying them). I have offered explanations for some of them that simply make them " not hold" . Now, what are your arguments against mine of Kant other than your understandable disaproval? If it is only that, then I'll take it anyways, but I need to know that such is the only response i'll get out of my argument, so I wont run in circles or thinking you are avoiding it. 2-It's almost as if someone told you that the sky is green, not blue--and has always been green. What do you do with that? The theory of God being a human that progressed to perfect deity raises so many questions. BTW "mind-blowing" simply means astounding--not foolish, evil, etc. Of course, you were wise to describe such comparison as an " almost", for it is definetely not the same issue. You take thomistic attributions of perfection instead as learned things, as SEEN and tested things. rather, my point is, yes, it may be weird and mindblowing for you to hear contra-positions towards it, but hey, lets reason both! About the questions it raises that God progressed, what are they? Share them. 3-Who's Kant to say that simply by definition, God could not have existed before the universe, as an eternal, perfect being? Well, for one, he is not merely ' saying" such and such, but also persuasively proving it. Now, I dont care of Kant's points of view if they are just a matter of authoritive speech(as the one you take form aquinas) rather I value his reasons for posting it. What are yours to the contrary? Just theologians say so? What about other theologians? How do you know which follows Scripture when such dosnt explains such things fully? Reason plays a key part. Just as your own vision when it comes to if i tell you the sky has always been green! 4-So, the god becomes a teacher, rather than one whom we would give absolute submission, worship, adoration, etc. Though I may recall the fact that God has revealed Himself as a supreme TEACHER in the form of Christ, I would just question the premise that in order for God to receive worship He must not share Himself fully with us. 5-Such a god could very well simply be another species Rather what we contend, is that we are ONE and the same species, that makes mortality for God reasonable and not contradictory. regards, P.D.(Maureen, I also have a life, and I am not always connected, but since is of your tase to make such nonesensical fanfare over my incapacity of speech, I just felt self-justified in being happy over discovering(after tracing the argumentative structure) that I am the less likely here to be uttering nonesense.)

M?? Dr.T?? PC?? Hum....yup, i thought so.

PC: 1-Eternal Existence: -"God's nature has not changed, progressed, etc.--He has always been what He is." Support: -"of a god who, before our time, was mutable, changeable, and who progressed...these were beliefs that were difficult to fathom." (Why/How?) -"that the God we now serve is a being who progressed to his current status) is mind-blowing."(Why/How?) -"..." 2-Infinitude: -"..." "and I suppose you would argue that your version is compatible with Scripture" Support: -"..." -"Kant's argument is from the perspective of a finite being. An infinite being would not be bound by the requirement to have something external to relate to." (Why/How?) 3-Finitude: -"Such a god does not at all mesh with the God of the Bible" Support: -"Especially, considering the exactness with which God demanded compliance in worship. The God I see in Scriptures is a jealous God, worthy of total submission, and worship. A finite god who is mutable, and who has grown to become what he is would not require such total obeisance, imho. But the eternal 3-omnis God could rightfully expect such." (Why/How?) - "struggles I would have with a god that was not omnipresent/powerful/niscient: Such a god could very well simply be another species. Smarter, more evolved, perhaps even a species that had created us. Nevertheless, a species. If so, just as we eventually become autonomous from our parents (though always related), we would eventually become autonomous from such a god. We would not worship him, we'd simply learn from him, and grow in our own ways." (Why/How?) This shall be it so far, now, do anyone see how the arguments have been going and who's fault is it? Who is answering who? And with what?! Also p.d., the "(Why/How)" that appears after each argument I provided it to make it sound obligatory to he who is giving it to find reasons to do so, if there are, they should follow such "(Why/How)", if not, and what follows next is not connected at all to what I asked "why", then such is the coherence of his arguments. Is this not understandable Dr.T???????

For the last time: In threads, as in common debates, we can write down the arguments of each person side by side, and then consider who has been answeing who's arguments, this, that I'll show you might be considered as the structure of this thread so far, below each username there will appear his arguments, and his responses to my arguments. Clear?? Do I translate? (Further before all this, you still have nbot ansewered me how did PC understand the thread at the point of participating and you didnt...huh...) Here it is: Intro: Concerning God, Ontology in general christendom has proposed that God existence must be eternal, because such attribute links Him to perfection also. Not only ontological claims must be considered here but also it's derivations. This thread, might include many other attributes... Dr.T: 1-Etarnal Existence: -"difficulty... with the above is the idea that an eternal being (God) did not exist eternally"(Why/How?), Support: -"If He didn't, He would not be eternal. It's a self defeating statement."(Also, Why/How?) -"..." -"Something/someone that was not "always perfect" or "always existent" was not/is not a perfect being" (Why/How?) -"The perfection breaks down, sir" (Why/How?) 2-Infinitude: -"there is still the problem of traversing an infinite that is a logical absurdity" (Why/How?) Suport: -"Things do not circle back to being God of which it all began (in a true circle)." (Why/How?) -"..." -"Finite events can lead to today-not a problem." - When the problem comes is an INFINITE being traversed (like the line of God's that you subscribe to). (Why/How?) 3-Finitude "then it follows that the man that became god (in your belief) was at one time imperfect."(Why/How?) Support: - [He]"has not always been perfect" (Why/How?) -"not a difficult concept to understand," (Why/How?) -"You are further in error in the idea that the god you worship was just like Jesus." (Why/How?) Conclusion: - "if god was once a man, and not god, then he was imperfect. Being imperfect means flawed. The god you believe in was at one point, that." Serg: 1-Eternal Existence "God as an individual not ontologically eternal"(He must not be a neccesary being)(Why/How?), Support:- we have no reference nor conceptual or physical that relates to such idea (Why/How?) -"position he holds(that of Godhood) always existed" (Why/How?) - There must be an Eternal Ruling if not an eternal individual Ruler(in a theist conception of the universe), if by logic we rule the individual out as eternal, then we must keep the Godhood at least in it's place -"The only reason(PROOF) you rationally got for making "perfection"dependable(or derived through) eternal existence is only your own judgement" (Why/How?) - "Energy, we know, through science, cannot be created or destroyed, hence, eternal(somehow), is it perfect? No. " -Concept Vs. Being, "God didnt exist, but that Godhood is eternal. I am saying that though humans not always existed(particularly-each person-of neccesity), humanity(as concept) on the other hand, did", "Eternal Godhead(wich is a state of affairs, not an individual!)" -"-His essense is eternal(just as ours)" -"He at one point in infinite time came to exist(as an rational individual)" 2-Infinitude -" in order to save God's omni atributes and self-existence you had to renounce to His individual worth",an infinite series of events CAN be traversed Support: -"trascendent AND inmanent(a rational contradiction)" (Why/How?) -Something cannot be equally A and not A at the same time, or A and B at the same time, where B contradicts A. -"absolute(infinite) omnipotence" to "Maximal Power". Process Theology as a response. -"Omnipresence and Conciousness" contradictory(as understood by current christendom) (Why/How?) - [God]"present in all places and in all times'(current omnipresence) "in order to be self-aware, apply concepts, and form judgments, in short, to have a mind, there must be objects that are external to a being that it can become aware of and grasp itself in relationship to" (current logic concerning conciousness). "There can be no external objects for an omnipresent God, so he cannot have a mind." -(*) There is a time t such that, for all n in the past, there is an m before n, but after t. (Where the variables range over discrete time intervals such as days, years whatever). There is absolutely no contradiction in this, indeed, it is a standard set-theoretical formulation. 3-Finitude: -"Our understanding of perfection is widely different from yours.", "So being a man(being FINITE) is not a contra-requisit for Godhood" Support: -"for if it were, then Jesus couldnt be our God" (Why/How?) -"I also believe Jesus to have been a man, yet, a perfect God" - "your question(#2) presuposes that if my particular member of the Godhead(i.e.Elohim, the father) was once a man, he had to be not a Christ, but a mere man." -"Elohim very well could have been incarnated and acted as a Christ, being mroally perfect during His mortality. " - "if rationally there is no problem with me saying that I could be a God, then there is no problem at all for me to even think it remotely that our Current God was once a such(be it a Christ or a sinner)."(Current Theosis concept) -"You may do very well first, in postulate a thesis concerning the impossibility(or irrationality) of me becoming a God, in order to prove your claim." - "you will still have to make a case positively " -"He has a body(which He gained through a respective-and past incarnation)" What do you make for such? - "In what manner is then your God "infinite"?" Still, I owe you PC arguments, I'll compile them later ;D Regards,

Dont turn such a beautiful attempt to meet theological discrepancies, M, to the common low rate scholar discussions that most of the time such "ironies of speech"bring. Now, after all, even you have misspelled words in this very thread, rather, I find it very childish for you(I mean, for a serious debater) to focus on the "attitudes"or "means"of speech instead of the clear discussion that has transpired here, at which, may I recall, neither you sweet heart, nor Dr.T, nor even PC have been able(or even willing?) to ellucidate. My arguments(some) have been set, why is your every response something concerned with my way of writting? If PC understood my last claim concerning Kant and God, then, why dont you? Is he more brilliant(able or willing) than both of you to try serious debate? Or is it just that it shows of your lack of interest(or capacity?) concerning your answers to my objections? Huh, I guess, after all, it is wowthless to speak to you in this thread, for as I see it, neither of you feel(actually ARE) prepared to face such tasks, and we will end up redundantly speaking of sweet "me". Regards,